NASA astronaut Mike Fincke said he was the crew member whose medical issue prompted the early return of the Crew-11 mission from the International Space Station last month.
The post NASA astronaut says his medical issue led to early return from the ISS appeared first on SpaceNews.
China’s Tianwen-2 spacecraft is operating normally on its way to a near-Earth asteroid ahead of sampling later this year, according to a rare official update.
The post China’s Tianwen-2 probe operating normally on approach to asteroid appeared first on SpaceNews.
Ken Bowersox, NASA’s associate administrator for space operations, is retiring from the agency after the release of a report critical of NASA’s handling of the Starliner crewed test flight.
The post Bowersox to retire from NASA appeared first on SpaceNews.
Quantum computers could solve problems that are out of reach for today’s classical machines. However, the quantum states they rely on are prone to decohering – that is, losing their quantum information due to local noise. One possible way around this is to use quantum bits (qubits) constructed from quasiparticle states known as Majorana zero modes (MZMs) that are protected from this noise. But there’s a catch. To perform computations, you need to be able to measure, or read out, the states of your qubits. How do you do that in a system that is inherently protected from its environment?
Scientists at QuTech in the Netherlands, together with researchers from the Madrid Institute of Materials Science (ICMM) in Spain, say they may have found an answer. By measuring a property known as quantum capacitance, they report that they have read out the parity of their MZM system, backing up an earlier readout demonstration from a team at Microsoft Quantum Hardware on a different Majorana platform.
The QuTech/ICMM researchers generated their MZMs across two quantum dots – semiconductor structures that can confine electrons – connected by a superconducting nanowire. Electrons can transfer, or tunnel, between the quantum dots through this wire. Majorana-based qubits store their quantum information across these separated MZMs, with both elements in the pair required to encode a single “parity” bit. A pair of parity bits (combining four MZMs in total) forms a qubit.
A parity bit has two possible states. When the two quantum dots are in a superposition of both having one electron and both having none, the system is said to have even parity (a “0”). When the system is instead in superposition of only one of the quantum dots having an electron, the parity is said to be odd (a “1”). Importantly, these even and odd parity states have the same average value of electric charge, meaning that a charge sensor cannot tell them apart.
The key to measuring parity lies in the electrons’ behaviour. In the even-parity state, an even number of electrons can pair up and enter the superconductor together as a Cooper pair. In the odd-parity state, however, the lone electron lacks a partner and cannot flow through the wire in the same way. By measuring the charge flowing into the superconductor, the team was therefore able to determine the parity state. The researchers also determined that the lifetimes of these states were in the millisecond range, which they say is promising for quantum computations.
According to Nick van Loo, a quantum engineer at QuTech and the first author of a Nature paper on the work, similar chains of quantum dots (known as Kitaev chains) are a promising platform for realizing Majorana modes because each element in the chain can be controlled and tuned. This control, he adds, makes results easier to reproduce, helping to overcome some of the interpretation challenges that have affected Majorana results over the past decade.
Van Loo also stresses that his team uses a different architecture from the Microsoft Quantum Hardware team to create its Majorana modes – one that he says allows for better tuneability as well as easier and more scalable readout. He adds that this architecture also allows an independent charge sensor to be used to confirm the MZM’s charge neutrality.
In response, Chetan Nayak, a technical fellow at Microsoft Quantum Hardware, says it is important that the QuTech/ICMM team independently measured a millisecond time scale for parity fluctuations. However, he notes that the team did not extend this parity lifetime and adds that the so-called “poor man’s Majoranas” used in this research do not constitute a scalable platform for topological qubits, as they lack topological protection.
Van Loo acknowledges that the team’s two-site Kitaev chain is not topologically protected. However, he says the degree of protection is expected to improve exponentially as more sites are added. In the near term, he and his colleagues hope to operate their qubit by inducing rotations through coupling pairs of Majorana modes. Once these hurdles are overcome, he tells Physics World that “one major milestone will still remain: demonstrating braiding of Majorana modes to establish their non-Abelian exchange statistics”.
Jay Deep Sau, a physicist at the University of Maryland, US, who was not involved in either the QuTech/ICMM or the Microsoft Quantum Hardware research, describes this as the first measurement of fermion parity in the smallest quantum dot chain platform for creating MZMs. Compared to the Microsoft result, Sau agrees that the quantum dot chain is more controlled. However, he is sceptical that this control will apply to larger chains, casting doubt on whether this is truly a scalable way of realizing MZMs. The significance of these results, he adds, will only be apparent if the quantum dot chain approach can demonstrate a coherent qubit before its semiconductor nanowire counterpart.
The post Read-out of Majorana qubits reveals their hidden nature appeared first on Physics World.
Delay complicates ULA’s push to accelerate launch cadence
The post Space Force halts Vulcan missions pending investigation into solid rocket Issue appeared first on SpaceNews.
Seraphim Space announced Feb. 25 it has completed fundraising for its second private early-stage venture fund, after exceeding its $100 million target to back young space technology startups.
The post Seraphim closes second early-stage space fund above $100 million target appeared first on SpaceNews.
Leaders of U.S. Space Command, U.S. Strategic Command and U.S. Northern Command closely involved in Golden Dome planning
The post Golden Dome to require unprecedented coordination between U.S. combatant commands appeared first on SpaceNews.
India’s space agency says a valve failure prevented a navigation spacecraft launched more than a year ago from raising its orbit.
The post Valve malfunction blamed for failure of Indian satellite to raise its orbit appeared first on SpaceNews.
Researchers in China have distributed device-independent quantum cryptographic keys over city-scale distances for the first time – a significant improvement compared to the previous record of a few hundred metres. Led by Jian-Wei Pan of the University of Science and Technology of China (USTC) of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), the researchers say the achievement brings the world a step closer to a completely quantum-secure Internet.
Many of us use Internet encryption almost daily, for example when transferring sensitive information such as bank details. Today’s encryption techniques use keys based on mathematical algorithms, and classical supercomputers cannot crack them in any practical amount of time. Powerful quantum computers could change this, however, which has driven researchers to explore potential alternatives.
One such alternative, known as quantum key distribution (QKD), encrypts information by exploiting the quantum properties of photons. The appeal of this approach is that when quantum-entangled photons transmit a key between two parties, any attempted hack by a third party will be easy to detect because their intervention will disturb the entanglement.
While the basic form of QKD enables information to be transmitted securely, it does have some weak points. One of them is that a malicious third party could steal the key by hacking the devices the sender and/or receiver is using.
A more advanced version of QKD is device-independent QKD (DI-QKD). As its name suggests, this version does not depend on the state of a device. Instead, it derives its security key directly from fundamental quantum phenomena – namely, the violation of conditions known as Bell’s inequalities. Establishing this violation ensures that a third party has not interfered with the process employed to generate the secure key.
The main drawback of DI-QKD is that it is extremely technically demanding, requiring high-quality entanglement and an efficient means of detecting it. “Until now, this has only been possible over short distances – 700 m at best – and in laboratory-based proof-of-principle experiments,” says Pan.
In the latest work, Pan and colleagues constructed two quantum nodes consisting of single trapped atoms. Each node was equipped with four high-numerical-aperture lenses to efficiently collect single photons emitted by the atoms. These photons have a wavelength of 780 nm, which is not optimal for transmission through optical fibres. The team therefore used a process known as quantum frequency conversion to shift the emitted photons to a longer wavelength of 1315 nm, which is less prone to optical loss in fibres.
By interfering and detecting a single photon, the team was able to generate what’s known as heralded entanglement between the two quantum nodes – something Pan describes as “an essential resource” for DI-QKD. While significant progress has been made in extending the entangling distance for qubits of this type, Pan notes that these advances have been hampered by low fidelities and low entangling rates.
To address this, Pan and his colleagues employed a single-photon-based entangling scheme that boosts remote entangling probability by more than two orders of magnitude. They also placed their atoms in highly excited Rydberg states to generate single photons with high purity and low noise. “It is these innovations that allow us to achieve high-fidelity and high-rate entanglement over a long distance,” Pan explains.
Using this setup, the researchers explored the feasibility of performing DI-QKD between two entangled atoms linked by optical fibres up to 100 km in length. In this study, which is detailed in Science, they demonstrated practical DI-QKD under finite-key security over 11 km of fibre.
Based on the technologies they developed, Pan thinks it could now be possible to implement DI-QKD over metropolitan scales with existing optical fibres. Such a system could provide encrypted communication with the highest level of physical security, but Pan notes that it could also have other applications. For example, high-fidelity entanglement could also serve as a fundamental building block for constructing quantum repeaters and scaling up quantum networks.
Carlos Sabín, a physicist at the Autonomous University of Madrid (UAM), Spain, who was not involved in the study, says that while the work is an important step, there is still a long way to go before we are able to perform completely secure and error-free quantum key distribution on an inter-city scale. “This is because quantum entanglement is an inherently fragile property,” Sabín explains. “As light travels through the fibre, small losses accumulate and the entanglement generated is of poorer quality, which translates into higher error rates in the cryptographic keys generated. Indeed, the results of the experiment show that errors in the key range from 3% when the distance is 11 km to more than 7% for 100 km.”
Pan and colleagues now plan to add more atoms to each node and to use techniques like tweezer arrays to further enhance both the entangling rate and the secure key rate over longer distances. “We are aiming for 1000 km, over which we hope to incorporate quantum repeaters,” Pan tells Physics World. “By using processes like ‘entanglement swapping’ to connect a series of such two-node entanglement, we anticipate that we will be able maintain a similar entangling rate for much longer distances.”
The post Quantum-secure Internet expands to citywide scale appeared first on Physics World.
A recent SpaceNews opinion article argued that it is time to “take astronomy off Earth.” The suggestion is straightforward: If satellite constellations and commercial space activity threaten ground-based astronomy, perhaps astronomers should simply move their work into space. As current, incoming and past presidents of the American Astronomical Society, we feel impelled to respond. As […]
The post The future of astronomy is both on Earth and in space appeared first on SpaceNews.
Todd McNutt is a radiation oncology physicist at Johns Hopkins University in the US and the co-founder of Oncospace, where he led the development of an artificial intelligence (AI)-powered tool that simultaneously accelerates radiation planning and elevates plan quality and consistency. The software, now rebranded as Plan AI and available from US manufacturer Sun Nuclear, draws upon data from thousands of previous radiotherapy treatments to predict the lowest possible dose to healthy tissues for each new patient. Treatment planners then use this information to define goals that streamline and automate the creation of a best achievable plan.
Physics World’s Tami Freeman spoke with McNutt about the evolution of Oncospace and the benefits that Plan AI brings to radiotherapy patients and cancer treatment centres.
Back in 2007, several groups were discussing how we could better use clinical data for discovery and knowledge generation. I had several meetings with folks at Johns Hopkins, including Alex Szalay who helped develop the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. He built a large database of galaxies and stars and it became a huge research platform for both amateur and professional astronomers.
From that discussion, and other initiatives, we looked at moving towards structured data collection for patients in the clinical environment. By marrying these data with radiation treatment plans we could study how dose distributions across the anatomy affect patient outcomes. And we took that opportunity to build a database for radiotherapy.
After populating the database with data from many patients, we could examine which anatomic features impact our ability to generate a plan that minimizes radiation dose to normal tissues while treating target volumes as best as possible. We came up with a feature set that characterized the relationships between normal anatomy and targets, as well as target complexity.
This early work allowed us to predict expected doses from these shape-relationship features, and it worked well. At that point, we knew we could tap into this database and generate a prediction that could help create treatment plans for new patients. We thought of this as personalized medicine: for the first time, we could see the level of treatment plan quality that we could achieve for a specific patient.
I thought that this was useful commercially and that we should get it out to other clinics. Praveen Sinha, who I’d known from my previous work at Philips and now leads Sun Nuclear’s software business line, asked if I wanted to create a startup. The timing was right for both of us and I had a team here ready to go, so we went ahead and did it. With his knowledge of startups and my knowledge of what we wanted to achieve, we had perfect timing and a perfect group to work with.
The idea behind predictive planning is that, for a given patient, I can predict the expected dose that I should be able to achieve for them.
Treatment planning involves specifying dosimetric objectives to the planning system and asking it to optimize radiation delivery to meet these. But nobody really knows what the right objectives even are – it is just a trial-and-error process. Plan AI’s prediction provides a rational set of objectives for plan optimization, allowing the planning system’s algorithm to move towards a good solution and making treatment planning an easier problem to solve.
Peer review involves a peer physician looking at every treatment plan to evaluate it for quality and safety. But again, people don’t really know the level of quality you can generate, it depends on the patient’s anatomy. Providing a predicted dose with clinical dose goals enables a rapid review to see whether it is a high-quality plan or not.
In the past we looked at simple things like whether a contour is missing slices or contains discontinuities and Plan AI checks for this, but you can do far more with AI. For example, you could look at all the contoured rectums in the system and predict if your contour goes too far into the sigmoid colon, then it may be mis-contoured. We have research software that can flag such potential anomalies so they don’t get overlooked.
When we first started, we developed a large SQL database containing all the shape-relationship features and dosimetry features. The SQL language is ideal for being able to query and sift through the data, but when the company was formed, we recognized that there was some age to that technology.
So for the Plan AI data lake, we extracted all the different shape-relationship and shape-complexity features and put them into a Parquet database in the cloud. This made the data lake much more amenable to applying machine learning algorithms to it. The SQL data lake at Johns Hopkins is maintained separately and primarily used to investigate toxicity predictions and spatial dose patterns. But for Plan AI, the models are fixed and streamlined for the specific task of dose prediction.
One of the first tasks was to curate the data, using the AAPM’s standardized structure-naming model. Our data scientist Julie Shade wrote some tools for automatic name mapping and target identification; that helped us process much larger amounts of data for the model.
Once we had all the shape-relationship and shape-complexity features and all the doses, we trained the models by anatomical region. We have FDA-approved models for the male and female pelvis, thorax, abdomen and head-and-neck. For each of these, we predict the doses for every organ-at-risk. Then we used a five-fold validation model to make sure that the predictions were good on an internal data set.
We also performed external validation at institutions including Johns Hopkins and Montefiore hospitals. We created predicted plans from recent treatment plans that had been evaluated by physicians. For almost all cases, both plan quality and plan efficiency were improved with Plan AI.
One aspect of this training is that whenever we drive optimization via predictive planning we want to push towards the best achievable dose. Regular machine learning predicts an expected, or average, dose across all patients. But you never want to drive a treatment plan towards the average dose, because then every plan you generate will be happy being average. Our model predicts both the average and the best achievable dose, and drives plan optimization towards the best achievable.
Radiation therapy is protocol-driven: we know what technique we’re going to use to treat and what our clinical dose goals are for different structures. What we don’t know is the patient-specific part of that. So for each anatomical region, we built models out of a wide range of treatment protocols, with many different types of patients, to ensure that the same prediction model works for any protocol. This means a user can use any protocol for treatment and the predictions will work, they don’t have to retrain anything. It’s ready to go out of the box, there’s a library of protocols to start with, and you can change protocols as you need for your own clinic.
The other part of being clinic-ready is aligning with the way that planning is currently performed, which is using dose–volume histograms. Treatment plans are optimized by manipulating these dose objectives, and that’s exactly what we predict. So users aren’t changing the whole paradigm of how planners operate. They still use their treatment planning system (TPS) – we just put the objectives in there. Basically, a TPS script sends the patient’s CT and contours to the cloud, where Plan AI makes the predictions. The TPS then pulls back in the objectives built from the models, based on this specific patient’s anatomy. The TPS runs the optimization and, as a last step, can send the plan back to Plan AI to check that it fits within the best achievable predictions.
Interestingly, the challenges aren’t technical, they are more human related. One of the more systemic challenges is data security when using medical data for training. A nice thing about our system is that the features we generate from treatment plans are just mathematical shape-relationship features and don’t involve a lot of identifiable information.
AI has been used in radiation therapy for image contouring and auto-segmentation, and early efforts were not so good. So, there’s always a good, healthy scepticism. But once you show people that it works and works well, this can be overcome. I have seen some people worried about job security and AI taking over. We are medical professionals designing a treatment plan to care for a patient and there’s a lot of pride and art in that – if you automate that, it takes away some of this pride and art.
I tell people that if we automate the easier things, then they can spend their quality time on the more difficult and challenging cases, because that’s where their talent might be needed more.
Introduce it as an assistant, not as a solution. You want people that already know what they’re doing to be able to use their knowledge more efficiently. We want to make their jobs easier and show them that it also improves quality.
With dosimetrists, for example, they create a plan and work hard getting the dose down – and then the physician looks at it and suggests that they can do better. Predictive planning gives them confidence that they are right and takes the uncertainty out of the physician review process. And once you’ve gained that level of confidence, you can start using it for adaptive planning or other technologies.
Right now, there’s been a lot of data collected, but we want that data to advance and learn. Having multiple centres adding to this pool of knowledge and being able to continually update those models from new, broader data sets could be of huge value.
In terms of patient outcomes, we’ve done a lot of the work looking at how the spatial pattern of dose impacts toxicity and outcomes. This is part of the research being performed at Johns Hopkins and still in discovery mode. But down the road, some of these predictions of normal tissue outcomes could be fed into the planning process to help reduce toxicity at the patient level.
During my prior experience building treatment planning systems, the biggest problem was always that nobody knew what the objective was. Nobody knew how to tell the system: “this is the dose I expect to receive, now optimize to get it for me”, because you didn’t know what you could do. For any given patient, you could ask for too much or too little. Now, for the first time, I argue that we actually know what our objective is in our treatment planning.
This levels the playing field between different environments, different countries, or even different dosimetrists with different levels of experience. The Plan AI tool brings all this to a consistent state and enables high quality, efficient planning everywhere. We can provide this predictive planning tool to clinics around the world. Now we just have to get everybody using it.
The post Todd McNutt: how an AI software solution enables creation of the best possible radiation treatment plans appeared first on Physics World.
Connexion