What is making waves in nanoscience? If you were to write that sentence using a pencil, you most likely would create a structure that is currently exciting many scientists.

The structure is called graphene and is created when a thin layer of atoms are peeled off a chunk of graphite. Graphite is, of course, the stuff pencils are made from, but it is also an interesting material for many reasons. First, it is one of a small family of materials that are intrinsically layered. Imagine that you are holding a net or a fine veil. For the clearest image, the wholes in the net should be hexagonal. Now imagine shrinking that net down such that each knot in the net is just a single atom of carbon. Lay the carbon net carefully on the table and then place your next atomic net on top of it. Once you’ve added your 100,000th layer, you have something that you can see since it is now about the thickness of a hair. This stack of nets is the structure of graphite and a single net is called graphene. Although floppy, this net is actually quite stiff–much stiffer than diamond. But, that is not what currently interests researchers. What really excites them is the way electrons move through graphene.

Now, I have been thinking about how to describe their behavior to someone who is not familiar with solid state physics (my own familiarity needs some brushing up too) and the best I can do is the following. Think of a pinball game with the ball at the top. Since the board is tilted, the ball always moves downward but is bounced off all the different bumpers and obstacles. When an electron moves through normal materials, it is like that pinball–always being bounced off different defects in the material which slow it. Electrons in graphene, however, act more like “ghost” pinballs. They tend to move through obstacles and not be bounced everywhere. Also, they do not have an effective mass when moving around.

There are many other anecdotes that could be shared, but the real point is that this is the first time scientists can study certain types of behavior. It had been thought that the only way to see some of these effects was to buy a much more expensive atom-smasher or to travel perilously close to a black hole. Now, these experiments can be done much more cheaply, allowing many more people to study it. And that is good, because Science is something we do together.
Why waves then? Well, electrons at this scale always act as waves…or particles (it depends how you ask).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who posted this?
Paul Sheehan. I’m a scientist working for the US Government who lives in Washington, DC.

Who sent me the challenge?
Nadja Pass. WoW2.

My challenge goes out to:
Paul has now passed on the challenge. Check back – or subscribe to this blogs rss-feeds – for the next Wave of Wisdom…

It’s almost a hundred years since Niels Bohr discovered the so-called uncertainty principle, meaning that it is impossible to know everything about a give article. Either you can know the position or the movement, but you cannot know both at the same time. It’s taken a lot of time, but my sense is that this principle is currently haunting the media business. Needless to say, not in its pure form but in the sense that after decades of confidence (some would say overconfidence) in itself and its purpose, the so-called Mainstream Media (MSM) is now racked by doubt and consumed by worry and uncertainty concerning its role, its future and even if there is a future.
This affects all aspects and almost all types of media. The traditional newspapers are the most obvious victim, hit by a barrage of challenges; the most serious of which are the internet and its promise of instant news and the free newspapers which seems to be multiplying in most major cities. But the crisis is not limited to newspapers, but can be felt by all media that used to see itself as a self-appointed guardian of the public interest. Ratings for mainstream television news is dropping rapidly, replaced and out competed by – again – the internet – and cable news stations such as Fox News where objectivity have given way to subjectivity and current affairs often seems little more than an opportunity for the talkshow hosts to pontificate.
However the crisis goes deeper, much deeper that Google News and the O’Reilly factor, and strikes at the very heart of professional journalism. The basic question is this: In a world where everybody with an internet connection can claim to be a journalist, where the power and reach of the traditional quality media is declining rapidly and – most disturbing of all – most people seem perfectly content with letting the traditional media wither and die, where is the future for journalists. And what happens to society if there is no future?
This is the question that has consumed editors and journalists worldwide for the last few years, without anyone coming up with good answers. Of course all papers and news organisations have frantically been investing in their websites, hiring bloggers and dabbling in multimedia. All of which have attracted people and traffic to their sites which are also beginning to see much more advertising, but still very far from enough to make up for the loss in the traditional markets. But even if the news sites managed to become much bigger and much more profitable it would still leave a huge gap compared to the traditional media. Not only are the news much shorter and – generally – much more superficial, it’s also different news that attracts readers. Check almost any newssite for the ‘most read’ story and you will invariably find a story about sex, celebrities and animals – and ideally a combination of all three. The in-depth though provoking piece on the Taliban threat in Wasiristan somehow never makes it to the list.
Serious journalism – for lack of a better word – therefore feels increasingly like a threatened species, at least in its traditional form, and making the problem worse is that it’s not just the consumers and technology that have changed, it’s also the owners. In the ‘good old days’ the owners of newspapers and other serious media were either former journalists or enlightened people of wealth who saw their ownership of the newspaper as a kind of public trust, where good journalism rather than profits were the name of the game. These days are all but over. In the US the Bancroft family recently capitulated and sold the Wall Street Journal to News. Corp. and Rupert Murdoch, leaving only the Washington Post and the New York Times in the traditional family controlled hands.
And even those bastings of journalism are under attack, recently the New York Times two-tier stock structure – which is the key in the Ochs Sulzberger-family’s control of the paper – came under attack from Wall St. And as the former editor of the L.A. Times said in a speech last year, the new owners are interesting in only one thing: Money. They don’t give a damn about the public interest and in an age where the media is already challenged, this single-minded focus on profits increases the worry and uncertainty among journalists.

So – where does all this worry and uncertainty leave journalists and journalism? Nobody knows and in a sense that’s a good thing. For a long time media was in the hands of the very few and very static. Now it’s the complete opposite. As this very site illustrates, publishing is no longer a privilege for the few but an option for almost everybody. And while it leaves the traditional media in dire straits (although I feel confident most of them will find a way to bounce back) it gives everybody else a much better say and a chance to be heard.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who posted this?
My name is Marcus Rubin. Currently I live in Jerusalem, where I read the bible, write a column for the Danish newspaper Politiken and a book about human rights in the Middle East. In January I move to Washington D.C. to cover the elections. I’m originally a lawyer – studied law in Copenhagen and London – but have worked as a journalist/editor in Denmark and the US for the last seven years, focusing on culture and international affairs.

Who sent me the challenge?
Nadja Pass. WoW1.

My challenge goes out to:
Marcus has now passed on the challenge. Check back – or subscribe to this blogs rss-feeds – for the next Wave of Wisdom…

I think the questionmark is spreading like a thoughtprovoking, inspiring and curious tsunami within the field of rhetoric, media, communications, writing and editing.

Politicians, advertizers and public speakers used to love exclamationmarks. Simple was considered good. Messages should be polished. Pinpointed. Easily understood and digested. No questions necessary. It was a rhetoric of shouting as loud and consistently as possible. A rhetoric of competition. A rhetoric of exclamationmarks. (!)

A rhetoric of listening

These days a rhetoric of listening, learning and asking questions is rapidly spreading thanks to the blogosphere, the social software movement and the peopledriven innovation-methods. In the blogosphere one can quietly whisper a good and relevant question that makes others think, reflect, respond, comment, discuss, elaborate.

And if that question is considered interesting, relevant or edgy others will join in and help eachother answer complex questions. Allowing uncertainty, inconsistencies, nuances and disagreements. The original message, post or question is only to be considered the starting point, the actual content is the discussion that follows. And the best questions are that are truly open. Curious. Unpolished. Somewhat rough.

Some questions are framed like “memes” that spread like a wake – e.g. the question “What are the five things nobody knows about you?” that asked the participants to “tag” five friends to answer the same question. And other questions – like the Waves of Wisdom-challenge “What’s making waves in your field?” are virtual relay races the wave their way aorund the world.

Unlearning the profession

And this new rhetoric of questionmarks is certainly making waves in my field. Because a lot of professional communicators have to unlearn a lot of what used to their professional trademarks. For instance spindoctors and advertizers have to rethink the way they work:

• Voters don’t believe simple messages and truhts anymore (if they ever did). Politicians admitting their doubt and uncertainty what is the right solution in a complex society – and asking the public for insights, ideas and help seem much more credible than those clinging to a simple and predictable message.
• Consumers are media-savvy and very ad-literate. Traditional advertizing is considered less credible than ever. Nobody believes a simplistic Unique Selling Point – and everybody knows that what sounds too good to be true, generally is too good to be true when it comes to advertizing. But if the corporations admit to being in doubt and wanting to develop relevant products the mediasavy consumers are more than willing to share their thougts on their needs and wishes – knowing that there is a chance they will get more relevant products in exchange.

The major challenge is for speakers, politicians, corporations, rhetors and writers to keep their integrity and not just go with the flow and the mass-opinions. To listen openly and be willing to change ones mind if new views or points emerge during the discussion – but at the same time never compromising with core values, ethos and integrity. This makes it harder to communicate – and communicators, corporations and politicians can no longer just hold on to what used to be the truth or the way things used be done. Things are changing rapidly – and one must completely emerge oneself in the debates and the everchanging constraints if one wants to succesfully keep on communicating. Automatic responses are no longer welcome.

Questions have turned my editorial proces upside down

In my work the wave of questionsmarks has inspired me to open up the editorial process for the future issues of Reflexioner. The editorial board used to keep everything a secret until the day we launched a new issue of the magazine. Now I’ve turned the editorial proces upside-down – and invited readers and thinkers from all over the world to help us create Reflexioner on Waves by participating the wavechallenges – brainstorming at Share a Brainwave and exploring how waves apply in various professions here on Waves of Wisdom. The new proces has so far turned out to be incredibly inspiring as new perspectives, twists and ideas constantly emerge due to the openended questions: “What associations do you have with waves” and “What’s making waves in your field?”

Asking questions makes the world go around

Personally I welcome this new rhetoric of questionsmarks that invites discussion. Uncertainties. Nuances. Complexity.
And who knows? Will the WoW-question “What’s making waves in your field?” will eventually spread like a waves throughout the world and make Waves of Wisdom yet another hub of interesting questions and thought-, curiosity- and questionprovoking answers?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who posted this?
Nadja Pass, the founding editor of Reflexioner, an independent publishing firm based in Copenhagen, Denmark. I hold a masters degree in Rhetoric from the University of Copenhagen and have been experimenting professionally with new mediaplatforms and ambient rhetoric for more than 10 years.

Who sent me the challenge?
Well – aherm… – I did. I’m the one who initiated the wave-challenges (Share a Brainwave and Waves of Wisdom). I posted this example to get the waves rolling and give you all an idea of what a post could look like…

My challenges go out to:
WoW1) The Danish journalist Marcus Rubin who currently lives in Jerusalem. For several years I’ve been reading his works in the Danish newspaper Politiken – and very, very often admired his ability to coin the new ideas within media, politics and religion. I think he instinctively spots new waves before they emerge. And therefore I’m now curious to know what waves comes to his mind when I ask him to share the current waves of his professional life.
So Marcus? What’s making waves in your field these days?

WoW2) My friend Paul Sheehan who is a scientist and has opened my eyes to the wonders of science, nanotechnology – and life – throughout our friendship. He is quite the “renaissance man” who adeptly mixes science, art and arts, with a great sense of humour and therefore succeeds in explaining very complex scientific matters in a very inspiring way.
So Paul? What’s maikng waves in your field these days?